Classic WoW Wiki talk:Working with Wikia
Comments and Feedback I like the idea of advertising within video, but not the video embedded into wiki. I know that we have a decent amount of embedding already here and there, but it still kills load time. It obviously is an excellent idea to pursue, though if we're going by load time, we're already one of the slowest websites on the web. I don't know that ads-in-the-content is going to work well, considering the high number of images we use. This is presumably along the lines of "ads after (before?) each h2"? I'd much prefer that placement to an "AdTest" type situation as on User:Gil/projectspace though, unless AdTest was highlighted like that deliberately? : I don't have a specific goal here - as much as the goal of experimenting to learn. For starters, I would suggest one of two paths... make the second section of certain pages a "Our Sponsor" section as an H2 -or- insert the suggested content into the second section of the article without an explanation. Artistically I liked the first better, as it created a stand-alone section, but I'm not wedded to any particular execution... so if people have a better idea, I'd love to hear it. http://world.wikia.com/wiki/User:GilGil (http://world.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Giltalk) 04:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ::If it's a stand alone section, $20 says it's not going to be clicked on nearly as much as if it's embedded into the 2nd section; i.e. if they expect it, they aren't going to want to view it. I'm sure we can try both ways, but I figure that the 2nd will generate higher funds. --Sky (t · · w) 03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Q&A, a la WW:WP, but as an extension? :SHHH: it's a secret, but if you promise not to blab, I will trust you. Go here: http://answers.wikia.com/wiki/When_is_WOW_Patch_3.0.9_being_released to see it. The goal would be to put something like this .PNG below into each article (header/body/somewhere) ::OK, that looks like a cool idea...but how does it help generate revenue? -- 04:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC) ::What he said. Also, FAQs seem like the antithesis to a wiki; the general info is already going to be documented on the wiki, and so we're going to get FAQs which are specific; thus a contradiction to the term "FAQ". --Sky (t · · w) 03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC) As for BradyGames and co, good ideas. --Sky (t · · w) 19:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC) :Do video embeds kill load time, if it just shows a 2D preview poster before you hit play? I guess we should have discussed it in more detail, but I was aasuming non-autoplay of videos when you went to the page. Autoplay would be horrible. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 3:59 PM PST 23 Jan 2009 ::For the record - it's called pre-roll video, it runs only AFTER you click on an embedded video and BEFORE the video runs. Autoplay video within the embeds sounds like a big fat YUCK to me too. http://world.wikia.com/wiki/User:GilGil (http://world.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Giltalk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC) :::Autoplay would be horrible, but that's not what I was asking about. Presumably, all videos load at the beginning of the load of the page, correct? This is the load time everyone hates about Monaco, and we should be doing more to reduce Monaco's load time itself, as well as keeping any extras from loading if possible. I.e., videos. I love the idea of ads in videos, but as I said before, everyone hates the load time. --Sky (t · · w) 03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC) :I'll let Wikia folks or Kirkburn explain the upcoming Q&A feature, as it is unannounced to the wider Wikia world. I will say that it is more than just a simple, free-form discussion area like the Warcraft pump, but I didn't get to see alot. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 4:03 PM PST 23 Jan 2009 Related to this, JoePlay (of the Wikia Gaming team), is going to add a few CrispyGamer videos around the wiki. They will follow the normal policies for where video stuff should go, per WW:MOS, and will be directly relevant to the page subject. You can see an example in action on Dragonblight#Videos. :) Edit: we may do the same thing with 5min. 18:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —If we must have spam can it at least be placed in the margins rather than smack-bang in the middle of text? Then again, I guess we can go back to Thottbot or Wowhead if we don't like the 'new direction' wowwiki is taking Ghost 9 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Inline ads aren't going to work like this... Now I'm not intending to move the debate over the placement of the ads here, but I don't think this is going to work. The problem is, obviously, that the contect is user-editable, so anyone who doesn't like the ads can remove them. This is already creating a lot of administrative overhead, making sure the ads don't get removed, punishing users that keep removing them... it's only going to get worse. So, I propose that some sort of system that injects the ads into the target pages via javascript be developed here. That way users can't remove them via editing and we put an end to this edit war across our most popular pages. 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC) :The problem is that most of your uses haven't even heard of this particular problem, so the instant they see the ad the first conclusion is that it's vandalism and needs to be removed. The first thought upon seeing the comment on the tag for it is that it's the vandal trying to cover themselves by sounding official. If I hadn't given it just enough benefit of the doubt to actually check this page I would've just deleted it outright. :And frankly...something everyone involved in advertising on the internet needs to grasp is that ads are most effective when the user WANTS to look at them. When they're intrusive or disruptive, they're not only LESS effective, but can actually have a NEGATIVE effect. I stopped reading Wired before I really started, and have a standing note to self to never, ever buy AT&T Wireless, because of one horrible Pop-Over Ad (We're talking one that has no close option and does not close itself automatically. It literally prevented reading the top of the article with the only bypass being reloading and hoping you don't get it, which wasn't happening). I similarly ditched Allakhazam because of their ads bogging down the site. :My father used to work as a customer service manager for one of the biggest newspapers in the state. One of the things we talked about a lot was that the amount that they charged for a copy of the paper didn't even cover the cost of the actual paper it was printed on. The money all came from the ads. When I asked why they didn't just offer it for free, like some people do, he said that they can get more money for the ads if they charge for the paper. Why? Because the fact that they're paying for it is proof that they actually want it. They could drop one for free on everyone's doorstop, but how many of them would get thrown away un-looked at like so much junkmail? 500000 people that mostly aren't reading it aren't worth much. 50000 that almost certainly are reading it is a different matter. :FORCING people to look at Ads is counter-productive. You want them to be visible, yes, but you want them to be visible in a way that people WANT to look at them, WANT to click on them. If it's intrusive... you could piss them off, seriously. Like 'I will never buy from that company' seriously (Looking at you, AT&T Wireless). Things like that are why we have popup blockers and firefox extensions that remove ads from sites. :It's also why I don't read wired and why I stopped using Allakhazam. Even if they fix the problem, I don't care. I'm not going back. Just this being seriously considered, much less implemented, has WoWWiki teetering on that line. It's pretty bad when a site run by a freaking gold seller is less obnoxious than a community run wiki. Graptor (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC) NO sir, I don't like it Just noticed one of these adds in the article shaman races... Its location is eyesore, and breaks up the flow of the article.... maybe if it was the end it wouldn't be so bad... But where its located currently is wrong on so many levels... I don't want to be accused of being a communist but I think this goes too far, :p..Baggins (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) :Seconded. Running into that interstitial on Heigan's page followed by the discovery it's not vandalism was almost enough for me to stop using WoWWiki entirely then and there. You guys start doing that kinda crap and you'll get ZERO revenue from me, as I'll find another site that isn't as obnoxious. :Even Worse is that on this page it says that they'd only be on a TEST site but I run into it on main? Ain't no wonder people are removing it. It's the wiki equivalent of a pop-over ad, frankly. If anyone else but the admin team put something like that in an article it'd be vandalism. :Being frankly honest here, I would rather see WoWWiki not even exist than have that kind of ad in it. They go or I'm taking the plugin out of Firefox and never coming back. I already stopped using Allakhazam because their ad providers bogged down page loading to an absurd extent, and haven't gone back(and won't) even though their redesign apparently cured it. If you want WoWWiki to survive, find something less obnoxious. Pissing off users is not a way to 'generate more revenue', it's a way to generate less. Graptor (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ::I'm in total agreement with you on this issue... I'd go as far to say that wowwiki is being vandalized by its own adminstrators by doing this... You won't catch me abusing my administration and adding those things in....Baggins (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC) :Honestly, I'd rather have had the domain name changed. --Ragestorm (talk · ) 02:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC) : You're telling me. I can't believe the ads are for leveling guides, at that. I don't know about the rest of the community, but I personally find the leveling guide "industry" to be as sleazy as it gets. They sell freely available information at a high price. : When I saw the ad on the deathknight page, I honestly thought some spammer had added it themselves, and started digging through the history for the revision the ad had been added in to verify. Then I found it, and followed the link in the accompanying html comment in the source here. Part of the shock is that I have *never* seen an inline ad in a Wikia wiki nor *any* site on the mediawiki platform. : Two things need to happen: (1) Advertise something more reputable. Again, this may just be me, but leveling guide sellers are just as irreputable as gold farmers in my eyes. (2) Include text in the ad templates explaining that the ad is official, and supports wikia. Something to the effect of "This ad helps wikia keep WoWWiki free", with a link to a page like this one. Looking at the ad as is, there's no indication that the ad is supposed to be there, and allowed by policy Merreborn (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC) :: Agreed with all of the above. I'd much rather just see the site go down or change domain name than having to put up with massive ads in the smack middle of pages, especially when they link to leveling guides. — Rhoot (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC) :The amount of communication going on here is somewhat disappointing. How long are those in-content ads for leveling/strategy guides going to stay in articles? Are there any plans or desires to hide those ads from logged in users? Are the appointed representatives still being consulted, and/or contributing community feedback? What is Wikia's general perception of community acceptance of the ads currently being run? :Personally, the in-line advertising annoys me to the point of avoiding editing the affected pages entirely. That's not a very good situation. -- foxlit (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC) ::I can see that this will probably lead to people being put onto the violation list for removing the "authorized" spam (which in its own way is hypocritically breaking another of our policies against spam & spammers). In other words it leaves open the possiblity that people will be punished doing the right thing by following spam cleaning policy, but punished for by breaking the unholy and contradictory "authorized" spam policy...Baggins (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)